DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1188--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 23, 2014, 12:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A new report details the extreme measure that the fossil-fuel
industry has taken to attack clean energy.
Gabe Elsner, Energy and Policy Institute
May 22, 2014
Fossil fuel-funded front groups repeatedly spread disinformation
on renewable energy standard and net metering policies in an
effort to overturn pro-clean energy laws in 2013 and 2014.
A new report details the efforts of these front groups to
eliminate clean energy policies across the country. The fossil
fuel lobby aggressively uses lobbying and propaganda to achieve
their goals. Self-identified “free market think tanks” are among
the most effective advocates for the fossil fuel industry to
lobby for policy changes. Dozens of these so-called free market
organizations, a majority of which are members of the State
Policy Network (SPN), worked to influence state level energy
policies and attack the clean energy industry.
These organizations are usually described in neutral,
nondescript terms, such as “think tank,” “institute,” or “policy
group,” but publicized internal documents from the American
Tradition Institute, Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill
Institute suggest that these types of organizations embrace
transactional relationships with the corporate lobbying
interests that fund their operations.
The Beacon Hill Institute, a “think tank” based out of Suffolk
University (and a Koch-funded member of SPN) submitted a
controversial grant request to the Searle Freedom Trust, a
prominent conservative foundation, in they expressly stated:
“Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination
to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or
repeal [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (or RGGI)].” In
other words, the Beacon Hill Institute proposed to pursue biased
economic research to support the express goal to “pare back or
repeal” a regional climate change accord — all before the
institute performed any research determining the economic effect
of the law.
Another example of the pay-to-play nature of these so-called
“think tanks” comes from Heartland Institute’s Internal
fundraising documents which stated: “Contributions will be
pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose
interests are threatened by climate [change] policies.”
Despite positioning themselves as ideologically-focused on
smaller government, dozens of these organizations aggressively
denounce policy investments in clean energy as market-distorting
and unnecessary, while remaining silent on the far-larger,
decades-old stream of taxpayer dollars and policies supporting
oil, gas, and coal interests.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
Over the years, government support for fossil fuels has come
from a variety of sources: tax deductions, tax credits, direct
subsidies, cheap access to public property, pollution
remediation, research and development, and entire government
agencies devoted to helping promote and assist fossil fuel
industry growth.
By all credible measurements, fossil fuel subsidies are massive
and extremely unpopular, and are flowing to some of the most
highly profitable industries on earth. Yet, fossil fuel
subsidies go largely unmentioned by these “free market” groups,
such as the Heartland Institute, despite their avowed opposition
to wasteful government spending.
Fossil fuel-funded front groups operate in multiple areas to
influence the policy-making process in their attempts to
eliminate clean energy policies. First, groups like the Beacon
Hill Institute provide flawed reports or analysis claiming clean
energy policies have negative impacts. Next, allied front groups
or “think tanks” use the flawed data in testimony, opinion
columns, and in the media. Then, front groups, like Americans
for Prosperity, spread disinformation through their grassroots
networks, in postcards mailed to the public, and in television
ads attacking the clean energy policy. Finally, lobbyists from
front groups, utilities, and other fossil fuel companies use
their influence from campaign contributions and meetings with
decision makers to push for anti-clean energy efforts.
Instead of advocating for a fair and free market for
electricity, over the past year and a half, fossil fuel front
groups have advocated to repeal, freeze, and eliminate pro-clean
energy policies across the country on behalf of allies and
funders in the fossil fuel industry. >:(
This is an exceprt from a new report, issued today by the Energy
and Policy Institute entitled "Attacks on Renewable Energy
Standards and Net Metering Policies by Fossil Fuel Interests and
Front Groups 2013-2014." You can download the 35-page report at
this link
HTML http://www.energyandpolicy.org/renewable-energy-state-policy-attacks-report.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/how-fossil-fuel-interests-attack-renewable-energy
#Post#: 1215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 25, 2014, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> “We can’t fund our schools on a boom-or-bust industry,” Arnold
said before she was ushered off the stage. “They’re poisoning
our state and ruining our chance for a strong economic future.”
--- End Quote ---
Elizabeth Arnold
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-036.gif
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0BKQAaNk9s&feature=player_embedded
A pleasant INTERRUPTION of Fossil Fuel (Fracking LACK ;) of
discussion in this case) Propaganda MO. ;D
Watch a Pennsylvania Woman
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif<br
/>Disrupt Democratic
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/nocomment.gif<br
/>Gubernatorial Candidates Who Avoided Fracking Discussion
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Brandon Baker | May 19, 2014 12:32 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/19/pennsylvania-woman-candidates-fracking/
#Post#: 1219--------------------------------------------------
‘Gasland’ Director Josh Fox Brilliantly Avoids Entrapment!
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 25, 2014, 6:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Watch ‘Gasland’ Director Josh Fox Brilliantly Avoid James
O’Keefe’s Oil Entrapment
Brandon Baker | May 25, 2014 9:00 am | Comments
Gasland director Josh Fox recently found himself in a game of
“Gotcha.” That is, until he turned the tables back around on the
man who tried entrapping him.
Conservative activist James O’Keefe had loads of fun in recent
years staging scams and releasing audio and video recordings of
notable people who were supposedly caught in compromising or
contradictory situations. He thought he had the perfect plan for
Fox—an over-the-phone offer to fund a future project with so
much oil money that even an environmentalist like Fox wouldn’t
pass it up.
However, a listen to the recording lets you know just how poorly
O’Keefe thought this thing out. He also didn’t anticipate that
Fox would recording the conversation as well. That was perfect
for exposing how O’Keefe edited the chat to give people the
perception that Fox was a sellout.
MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes captures it all and lets Fox
explain why he also recorded the odd conversation:
GREAT VIDEO! Don't miss it! ;D
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/25/gasland-josh-fox-james-okeefe-entrapment/
#Post#: 1261--------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use that
argument
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 31, 2014, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use
that argument,” said Donald. J Wuebbles, a distinguished
professor of atmospheric sciences and coordinating lead author
for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013
assessment report.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Boehner Says He’s ‘Not Qualified’ To Talk About Climate Science.
Here’s How Scientists Responded
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
By Emily Atkin on May 29, 2014
HTML http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/29/3442887/scientists-rip-boehner-climate-comments/
#Post#: 1376--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 14, 2014, 9:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
[move]Chevron Hides Evidence That Proves Guilt in Ecuador
Rainforest Contamination Case[/move]
Karen Hinton | June 13, 2014 1:03 pm |
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140614221527.jpeg
In the wake of a controversial U.S. court ruling that a $9.5
billion Ecuador judgment against Chevron is fraudulent, the oil
giant has been touting loudly its innocence of any environmental
crimes in the South American country.
Chevron’s lawyers even successfully pressured some CBS News
corporate suits to yank a damning 60 Minutes piece from the
network’s website about the deliberate contamination of the
Ecuador rainforest from 1964 to 1992 by Texaco, which Chevron
later bought.
Instead of succumbing to Chevron’s pressure tactics, CBS’
lawyers should grow a backbone and demand to see contamination
“playbook” documents that Chevron has been forced to produce in
an international arbitration proceeding.
They are explosive and prove 60 Minutes got it right, and the
U.S. judge got it wrong.
The playbook details how the company hid evidence of
contamination during an eight-year Ecuador trial resulting in a
$9.5 billion damage award that the Ecuadorians are waiting for
Chevron to pay.
Meanwhile, Chevron is claiming in arbitration that the Republic
of Ecuador should pay the judgment, and the two parties are
duking it out before a panel of corporate trade lawyers who rent
office space at The Hague and act as “judges”—more about them
later.
The playbook took center stage in a recent arbitration filing by
Ecuador. It appears the country’s lawyers have gotten their
hands on much of, if not the entire, playbook, but the corporate
trade lawyers are requiring Ecuador to redact or cover up the
really damning evidence.
Even so, a recent rejoinder filed by Ecuador reveals enough to
demonstrate what a morally bankrupt company Chevron is.
Here’s what we know about the playbook, pieced together from the
filings of both the Ecuadorians in U.S. court and the Republic
of Ecuador in arbitration.
In 2011, the Ecuadorians obtained a few pages from the playbook
and tried to enter them into evidence during Chevron’s “fraud”
trial, but Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to allow any
evidence of contamination into the record, including the small
excerpt from Chevron’s playbook.(See my recent blog about this
legal travesty, and this earlier 2011 press release about the
playbook)
During the Ecuador trial Chevron’s paid experts wrote the
playbook to document how to handle the contamination they found
at the well sites in soil and water tests.
Without the knowledge of the Ecuador court, Chevron’s experts
conducted unofficial and secret pre-inspections of the sites so
they could avoid the badly contaminated areas during the
official judicial inspections.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
(page 63 in the
rejoinder)
Their pre-inspection findings would have been devastating to
their case had they been turned over to the court. So they never
were.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif(page
63)
Instead, they used the
HTML http://drphilyerboots.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/cherry-picking.jpgresults<br
/>to avoid the contaminated areas and test at clean spots,
usually from soil and water at elevations higher than the huge,
unlined and open pits Texaco built to store permanently pure
crude and toxic water.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
Quick backgrounder: Texaco explored for oil in Ecuador from 1964
to 1992 and was the sole operator of the well sites during that
time. The Ecuadorians filed their original lawsuit in the U.S.
against Texaco in 1993, one year after Texaco left Ecuador. A
U.S. judge dismissed their lawsuit ruling in 2001 at Texaco’s
urging the litigation should be heard in Ecuador. That year,
Chevron bought Texaco. In 2003, the Ecuadorians re-filed their
case in Ecuador but not before the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals instructed Chevron that it must accept Ecuador’s
jurisdiction, which it did.
Chevron routinely used deceptive methods, such as mixing clean
soil with dirty and undercounting hydrocarbons, to hide or
reduce toxic chemicals in samplings. (pages 66-72)
This table below (at link), taken from the arbitration filing,
reflects just a few of the thousands of pages of playbook notes
Chevron’s experts and field personnel took, describing the
contamination and advising the company about ways to avoid it
during the official judicial inspection:
It’s heavily redacted. If it’s true—as Chevron says it is —that
the oil giant is innocent
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif,<br
/>and the truth is what it seeks
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif,<br
/>then why won’t Chevron release the un-redacted, unedited
playbook for all to see? >:(
Read the rest of this article here and please pass it on! We
want everyone to know what these conscience free fossil fuelers
are ALWAYS up to when one peeks beneath their mendacious happy
talk propaganda (I.E. ALWAYS Profit over Planet!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif).
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/13/chevron-evidence-guilt-ecuador-rainforest/
#Post#: 1381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 15, 2014, 12:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Groups Call on FCC to Investigate Radio Stations Airing False
Ads
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
on New Carbon
Standards
EcoWatch | June 12, 2014 10:19 am
In an effort to elicit a federal investigation into radio
stations airing false advertisements critical of the Obama
Administration’s new carbon standards, more than two dozen
organizations sent an open letter to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) yesterday.
The letter urges the FCC to look into 23 radio station in five
states—Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and
Pennsylvania—that are still airing a widely discredited ad paid
for by the National Mining Association
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
despite repeated requests that it be taken off the air.
HTML http://files.cdn.ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NMAad.jpg.png
[move]The above is Mendacious Scare Mongering propaganda by the
fossil fuelers
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/move]
A print and radio advertising campaign paid for by the National
Mining Association is spreading false information about the
Obama Administration’s new carbon emission standards.
The ad makes deceptive statements about the first-ever proposed
federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants. This ad
earned “four Pinocchios”—their highest rating—from Washington
Post fact checkers, because they found the ad to be “wholly
unsupported” and “bogus.”
According to Natural Resources Defense Council, the groups
question whether the stations are properly serving their
communities, noting that the FCC has advised broadcasters to
ensure ads run on their stations are not false.
The full text of the letter follows:
June 11, 2014
Chairman Tom Wheeler
Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel, Ajit Pai and
Michael O’Rielly
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20536
Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel,
Pai, and O’Rielly:
We write to ask you to investigate 23 radio stations that
continue to run a false and misleading radio advertisement,
sponsored by the National Mining Association (NMA), despite
extensive and detailed critiques of the ad. The ad is airing in
five states: Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and
Pennsylvania. We have sent multiple letters over the last three
weeks to the respective stations’ managers, requesting that the
radio stations cease airing the NMA radio ads, but these
requests have gone unanswered. We ask that the Federal
Communications Commission initiate an investigation into the
licensees airing the deceptive NMA radio advertisement.
The central claim of the National Mining Association ad, which
has been determined to be false by independent researchers, is
an inaccurate and duplicitous statement about the impact of
proposed clean air standards. The Washington Post fact checkers
called the NMA ad claims “bogus,” “hyped,” and “wholly
unsupported.” They concluded that “the ad does not pass the
laugh test” and assigned the ad “four Pinocchios,” their worst
rating. In addition, the Denver Post declared that the radio ad
“flunks the truth test.” Both articles are attached for your
review.
The National Mining Association has attempted to defend its
deceptive ad against The Washington Post’s analysis, but in
doing so has simply created more misleading claims. Attached to
this letter is a point by point refutation of the flawed
arguments in NMA’s most recent letter.
The FCC has advised broadcasters that they are “to be
responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable
care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are
not false or misleading.” We request that the FCC investigate
whether the radio stations running this misleading advertisement
are properly serving their communities.
Sincerely,
Natural Resources Defense Council
350.org
Arkansas Sierra Club
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Wisconsin
Climate Parents
Climate Solutions
Earth Day Network
Environment America
Environment Michigan
Environmental Defense Fund
Forecast the Facts
Greenpeace USA
Interfaith Power & Light
Iowa Environmental Council
Iowa Interfaith Power & Light
League of Conservation Voters
Michigan Environmental Council
Montana Environmental Information Center
Oregon Environmental Council
PennEnvironment
Protect Our Winters
Public Citizen
Re-Volt Pueblo
Snake River Alliance
Southern Environmental Law Center
SustainUS
Western North Carolina Alliance
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/12/fcc-investigate-false-carbon-standards-ads/
#Post#: 1425--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 20, 2014, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Big Oil and Big Guns: Not so strange bedfellows
Questions arise over why oil and gas companies are donating
money to gun groups with seemingly opposing political aims
June 16, 2014 5:00AM ET
by Jamie Tarabay - @jamietarabay
HTML http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/16/big-oil-and-big-gunsnotsostrangebedfellows.html
HTML http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/16/big-oil-and-big-gunsnotsostrangebedfellows.html
Agelbert NOTE: Interesting first article in a series. It turns
out that ONE zip code in the DFW is the origin of MOST of the
"donations" to politicians on behalf of BIG OIL!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
:o
#Post#: 1482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 1, 2014, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MKing link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=785.msg50584#msg50584
date=1404193987]
> 2012 interview. The oil bastards don't know when to stop
trashing the planet! It's up to us to STOP them.
--- End Quote ---
Way ahead of you Anthony. May I recommend you join those of us
already DOING something about it, get rid of that Camry and
become part of the solution, not the problem!
HTML http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/19/automobiles/wheels-sun/wheels-sun-blog480.jpg
[/quote]
Mr. MKing,
I'll make a deal with you. YOU PROVE you have DIVESTED from ALL
Fossil fuel investments, stocks, mutual funds or whatever AND I
WILL, not sell, but RECYCLE the metal, glass, wiring, rugs,
plastic, rubber and whatever else is of use from the camry so
NOBODY ELSE can run it ever again. ;D
You see, I can add and subtract quite well. I'm not into
creative, the will makes the reality, type "math".
IOW, when you PROFIT from dirty energy to BUY a clean energy
(e.g. Bush's ranch had geothermal power installed from big oil
profits!) you have not done JACK **** to improve the biosphere
or the corruptus in extremis status quo that is killing us.
You are akin to the rich man that engages in "philanthropy" to
green wash his putrid, greedball, conscience free, predatory dog
eat dog mentality.
If you HAVE a conscience, I can help you overcome your "guilt"
feelings for promoting a dirty energy world through your
lifetime piggery. I will joyfully accept your used Volt free so
you can buy a brand new ALL ELECTRIC Leaf! ;D
Right. I didn't figure you would be interested...
I'm bad. I drive a 1997 camry to the grocery store, pharmacy and
doctor's and pacemaker appointments (and to a "gulp" gas station
every now and then :-[) less than 2,000 miles a year. I am
such an environment destroyer I should just STFU, right?
And since you are DOING so much to save the world, are you in
favor of BANNING the manufacture and sale of ALL internal
combustion engine powered cars RIGHT NOW?
I am.
Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?
Are you in favor of shutting down ALL the coal fired power
plants in the WORLD ( And spare the FUD that "we are all going
to die" from a civilizational collapse if we do that. ;)) RIGHT
NOW?
I am.
Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?
Are you in favor of shutting down ALL the nuclear power plants
in the WORLD RIGHT NOW and pulling the turbines out and
installing them in geothermal power plants (600C is 600C and
those giant steam turbines down give a **** where the heat came
from! ) or not?
I am.
Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?
Are you in favor of MANDATING that ALL remaining fossil fuel
power plants in the WORLD switch to biofuel feedstock
hydrocarbon fuels within a decade or not?
I am.
Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?
Are you in favor of eliminating ALL energy subsidies, direct
and indirect on Fossil, nuclear and renewable energy technology
RIGHT NOW or not?
I am. Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?
Do your good deed for the day, Mr. World Savior. Sign my ****ing
petition and show me how wrong I am about you.
HTML http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ai3Tb
HTML http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/Ai3Tb
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300614160245.gif
Only Care2 sees your name, address and e-mail (you can elect to
not have your name displayed 8) ). All I see is the general
geographic area.
Have a nice day. ;D
For those who think I am a piggy compared with MKing, remedial
classes on materials engineering, MTBF, manufactured product
life cycle costs (all of them) and cost accounting are available
at UVM. ;D
#Post#: 1698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 14, 2014, 6:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Flaw and Order: How Brookings Got Its Analysis of Wind and
Solar Costs So Wrong
HTML http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/flaw-and-order-how-brookings-got-its-analysis-of-wind-and-solar-costs-so-wr<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
SNIPPET 1:
Pick your metric:
levelized cost of energy,
saved carbon,
cash flow profile,
financial return,
annual and
cumulative installed capacity or
global investment.
By any meaningful set of accurate data and recent trends,
renewables such as PV and wind are making rapid and accelerating
inroads against incumbent fossil fuels -- precisely because
they’re proving themselves increasingly economical, not because
they’re supposedly swimming against the economic tide.
SNIPPET 2:
The “ripped from the headlines” data and recent real-world
trajectories of renewables show a low-carbon electricity future
based on solar and wind is being built as fast as or faster than
RMI’s analysis predicted it could.
That’s not because renewables are defying economics (as Dr.
Frank’s defective analysis would suggest they are), but because
their ever-more-competitive economics reinforce their expanding
gains against incumbent power stations.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
;D
#Post#: 1730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: August 23, 2014, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]MORE MATH CHALLENGED BS From the Economist posing as
"balanced" Journalism in the service of "Doing the math" on
Renewable Energy costs.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif[/move]
The cost of renewable energy; New numbers, same conclusion
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Aug 22nd 2014, 17:59 by J.P.
HTML http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/08/cost-renewable-energy
Agelbert's comment posted at the Economist for all Mking math
challenged prevaricators to enjoy. ;D
Dr. Frank is mendacious and duplicitous. Dr. Lovins is being far
too polite. It's time for the Economist to admit that Renewable
energy is NOT an issue of 'balance' about whether it actually
costs more than Fossil Fuel and/or Nuclear power Energy. But
that would require the "Economist" to ADMIT that the biosphere
IS the ECONOMY, not their convenient and resource extraction and
pollution cost IGNORING view of the human "economy" taught for
over a century in business schools for the "benefit" of
predatory Capitalism which, in the final analysis, is
ANTI-Capitalistic because it DESTROYS, rather than accumulates,
Capital.
Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of
Stupid" Video:
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-government
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 30
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page